HaydenHawk56
Well-Known Member
Due to their post-seasons being cut short?
Not happening, but would you support giving all Senior College Players a 1 year extension?
- Thread starter HaydenHawk56
- Start date
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
No. Unless you are giving incoming recruits an automatic redshirt. And what about scholarship limits?
Then again, it would make things easier for $EC coaches...
Then again, it would make things easier for $EC coaches...
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
No. What about the guys behind them in line for playing time next year and the incoming Frosh. Now you have roster imbalance, extra scholarships and you're effectively taking the playing time away from the other players.
What happened with the tourney sucks. But it's a good lesson for life ahead, sometimes things are unfair. Unfortunate but that's life.
What happened with the tourney sucks. But it's a good lesson for life ahead, sometimes things are unfair. Unfortunate but that's life.
SteveGarvey1
Well-Known Member
I'm guessing Evelyn has never played in an NCAA tournament. He must have really been looking forward to it and I was pleased that he had become a nice contributor the last 7-8 games. That really sucks.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
It also preserves the Hawks being co-national champs with the other 67 tourney teams! Feel bad for the "last out" teams, though.
HaydenHawk56
Well-Known Member
Reading through that thread, I would agree, take it one step further and do this:
Keeneland Dan
@fatbaldguyracin
Replying to
@franfraschilla
It absolutely should happen every single player should be granted an extra year from frosh to senior this year never happened
Keeneland Dan
@fatbaldguyracin
Replying to
@franfraschilla
It absolutely should happen every single player should be granted an extra year from frosh to senior this year never happened
They would not count against the scholarship limit if they did.
kicker22
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't your entire argument against it then also fit into the category of a "good lesson for life ahead that sometimes things are unfair"? Maybe I'm looking into this the wrong way, but you're saying it would be unfair to those that didn't get the extra year, and that's perfectly fine, but those that want the extra year back need the life lesson that somethings are unfair? I guess I see it as contradicting as I see the "sometimes things are unfair" argument being used by either side in the debate.
HaydenHawk56
Well-Known Member
That would make a lot of sense to.
kicker22
Well-Known Member
I would say that for the spring sports if they're willing to pay their own way then I think that the NCAA should allow the programs additional roster spots to accommodate. Winter sports I'm not sure, as no tournament fields were released so IMO it would be hard to grant a player on a team projected outside the bubble an extra year when there season could just as well have been over anyway.
Fryowa
Administrator
Both options suck for a segment of student athletes. But it would suck less for underclassmen because they'd at least have remaining time to use. And if they did extend eligibility for seniors, the NCAA would likely do something to mitigate the sting to underclassmen.
I'd be ok with extending eligibility, but what I think they should really do is just hold the basketball and wrestling tournaments when this thing chills out. Then everyone's happy other than baseball and softball players and you just have to deal with that. They don't have a lot of scholarship burden anyway.
I know there are many other spring sports other than baseball and softball, but let's face it, they're basically club level sports where scholarships, redshirts, and possible professional careers are not in jeopardy nearly to the degree that others are.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
You're forgetting something. The underclassmen are ALSO losing the rest of this season. They are getting the same lesson as the Seniors. Do they get the same benefit then of extra eligibility? If not the "solution" disproportionately screws over one group. What about Seniors who's teams are already out? Do they deserve another year? The term "Pandora's box" comes to mind. If you're going to overload rosters with too many players...recruiting and transfers now come into play. Maybe "cluster f***" would be a better term.
The fallout from the virus is a tough life lesson...nothing that could really be done about it. A misguided solution afterwards is bad policy which can be avoided. Curiously enough...that's another potential lesson in the making.
The loss of playing time over an entire season, vs loss of 3 games (an average...many Seniors will lose none, most 1 or 2...only a rare few more than 3 or 4. Hardly an equitable solution.
Last edited:
Fryowa
Administrator
They do however have remaining eligibility coming. In my opinion that has to be considered. The seniors have also put the most time and effort into the programs at that point in time.
This doesn't have to be an all or none proposition, there's a compromise somewhere in this mess that will work for the greatest number of student athletes.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
I voted yes but
Why do you care so much about this? Bringing back the seniors just makes the teams better, the underclassmen would still be able to compete for playing time. Not every senior would return, some would leave for the NBA and others may not want to return for another year of college. But I think it would be fair for those outgoing seniors to have that option to return since this year did get cut off.
The only reason why I wouldn't support it is because Iowa wouldn't gain as much as the other teams, Iowa only lost Kreiner. Other than that there really isn't any downside.
Why do you care so much about this? Bringing back the seniors just makes the teams better, the underclassmen would still be able to compete for playing time. Not every senior would return, some would leave for the NBA and others may not want to return for another year of college. But I think it would be fair for those outgoing seniors to have that option to return since this year did get cut off.
The only reason why I wouldn't support it is because Iowa wouldn't gain as much as the other teams, Iowa only lost Kreiner. Other than that there really isn't any downside.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
So, having an opinion is OK for you...but if I have one I care too much. uh...ok.
I refer to my earlier post. You'd be screwing over 4 classes of kids because 1 class missed somewhere around 2-3 games on average. Seems out of balance. I'm not big on "solving" one problem by creating another one.
I hate to see March Madness cancelled...it's my favorite sporting event of the year. It sucks big time. I can only imagine how the players feel. But it is what it is.
Last edited:
